Breaking the chains, winning the games, and saving Western Civilization.

Sunday, June 21, 2015

Improving the Rangers

Failure is a fresh approach:

On Friday, the Army announced that all the women who had attempted to
graduate from Ranger School had officially failed to meet the
standards, according to a military source.

Ranger School, which
grooms the Army’s most elite special operations fighting force, opened
its doors to women for the first time this year. Eight of the 20 women
who originally entered the school's first co-ed class were allowed to
recycle through the program after they fell out in their first go-round.
The Friday announcement confirmed this happened again. Three of the
eight were invited to take the course over again in late June....

But there is another opinion quietly being
voiced as well: that Ranger School is more akin to a rite of passage –
an opportunity for men to “thump their chest,” as one Ranger puts it –
than a realistic preparation for leading in war. That women can actually
make Ranger units more effective. And that the standards that keep them
out are outdated....

This argument is less about gender equity than the firm belief that women can make Ranger battalions better.
In modern warfare, relations with local populations are crucial, and
women Rangers would provide unique value added in places such as
Afghanistan or Iraq, where cultural norms often prohibit contact between
male soldiers and women. Ranger School also showed women were
innovative problem-solvers who offered fresh approaches in the field.

I say the U.S. Army should go one step further. Let's see them make all combat positions women-only.

In modern warfare, relations with local populations are crucial, and women Rangers would provide unique value added in places such as Afghanistan or Iraq, where cultural norms often prohibit contact between male soldiers and women.

The obvious rejoinder is the women don't have to be Rangers to do that 'relations with local populations' thing. These women worked with Special Operations teams without going through Special Operations training:

"women Rangers would provide unique value added in places such as Afghanistan or Iraq, where cultural norms often prohibit contact between male soldiers and women. "

Don't go to war in places such as Afghaniraq. Solved.

I might be under the mistaken impression, so correct me if I am wrong, that war is mostly the business of men. Relationship with the locals always starts with the warlord/village chief, quite often facilitated by the help of a local translator/mediator. You start with the head of the tribe, who handles his men, who then handle their wife/wives.

I don't see female Rangers being allowed to break protocol in a part of the world where the patriarchy (shudders) is still going strong. What value could they offer really. Unless they are seen as nannies/nurses once some level of trust has been built between the men.

OT: Listening to Lee Fields + The expressions - Ladies.So yeah, I am a reader of AG and VD so I am the cause of the massacre that happened @ SC AME (I am a bad bad white person. Very bad.), but I can still appreciate some good music.

"Ladies.Lovely ladies.Beautiful ladies.You’re so fine, so fine.Come summertime.I just love to see you walk. Girls I love your styleI love to hear you talk. Girls you make me smile.And when you pass me by, you’re like candy to my eyes."

"Let's see them make all combat positions women-only" Yep, at least until as many women have been killed in action as men have been in the country's history. Because equality. Of course, in any real war that goal would be reached in about three days.

You start with the head of the tribe, who handles his men, who then handle their wife/wives.

Yes, but we're not trying to win a war; we're trying to reform their society on modern egalitarian lines. So we need female troops who can talk to their women and girls and share with them the glories of women's suffrage and tramp stamps. Get them rebelling against their men in their own homes, and we'll bring them to heel without all that messy shooting.

Of course, as one of Dexter's links shows, that ignores the possibility that the local women aren't actually oppressed cows and might have a few things to teach foreign women themselves.

Net effectiveness gains is the crux of the entire argument and is something that's lost in the discussion about standards, accommodations, and so on.

The soft-skill argument that proponents offer is a very narrowly focused argument indeed. Women add nothing that men can't bring to the combat arms ("Mission of the infantry: The mission of the Infantry is to close with the enemy by means of fire and maneuver in order to destroy or capture him, or to repel his assault with fire, close combat, and counterattack"), and incur costs (even if only the opportunity costs of putting a low-yield group through the courses, without even going into the cohesion, capability, and accommodations aspects of it) , so the net outcome of adding women will always be negative and detrimental to the mission and capability of the Rangers or Seals or whomever.

As an aside, I'd like to see at least one of these women pull a Katie Petronio and write a book or at least a few in-depth articles about their experiences. From what I've read, they got a fair amount of special training and prep to make it to the course, but even then have not made it through.

I say the U.S. Army should go one step further. Let's see them make all combat positions women-only.

As it stands, there is another (non-obvious) double-standard already in place. During recruiting (for enlisted) and branching (for officers) there are job preferences, and if you're not good enough to get your preferences, you get slotted against what is euphemistically termed "needs of the Army." This often ends up being the shit jobs or posts that you didn't want, but HRC has to fill slots somehow. Think light infantry at Fort Drum, NY.

Men get forced into combat arms all the time. Those units have the most billets to fill.

If women are allowed into combat arms, I'd bet quite a bit that going into combat-arms will be strictly voluntary (no source, but if I know my institutions...).

To go Full-Equality, the Army would have to make both processes blind. It won't of course, since only men will be shoved into the less-desirable jobs, and women will still have access to the cushy jobs, in the process denying those more limited slots to men.

Women provide exactly one unique value add, and they've been providing it to soldiers since time immemorial without needing to join the army.

we're not trying to win a war; we're trying to reform their society on modern egalitarian lines

Good point. Though perhaps it's even worse than that. We're probably really not even trying to reform their societies and instead just trying to make a bunch of idiot feminists feel good about themselves. Seems to me having a bunch of bull dykes proselytizing the local women isn't the best way to get the local men on your side. And it's the local men who have the AK-47 and who plant the IEDs.

Tell us, Michael, how are the interests of the USA as a whole best served by having women in combat positions? Rather than tell us about your precious feelings, how about telling us with data, references, etc.?

@ Jeff: I mean the very idea that women should be in the military at all, let alone in combat forces, let alone in SF is utterly moronic and those pushing the idea should be laughed at instead of taking this lunacy seriously.

I have zero doubt that they have already cost men their lives.

"Servicemen"? Sure... but that should be their sexual job description, nothing else. They're probably already more often than not whores already.

Indeed, let the carnage begin. The equal sex has hundreds of millions of lives to give and legs and arms to be blown of and faces burned before they can literally become as "privileged and equal" as men-as-soldiers have always been.

It's just a ritualistic mockery at this point by Govts and the people behind them.

Y'all might be confused on one important point. This is for Ranger School, which teaches leadership under stress. It's almost a requirement for officers looking to make a career out of the Army. Graduating Ranger School entitles the graduate to wear a Ranger Tab above their unit patches, which is a distinction in the Army. But graduating Ranger Assessment and Selection Program (RASP) entitles a soldier to enter the Ranger Regiment, which is an even more prestigious event, allowing them to wear the Ranger Scroll and Tan Beret. If they can't handle Ranger School, they definitely won't be able to survive RASP. And that would be the 'proof' of equality.

Good clarification... However, whether or not an individual survives the course(s) is immaterial to the argument, if the desired outcome is overall increased military effectiveness. If I have to put 1000 females through to find the 3 or 4 who can make it on equal terms, that's a lot of slots that didn't go to equally qualified guys, hence wasted resources and sub-optimal effectiveness even before getting to the unit level. The military does a lot of dumb stuff and has huge waste, but this is an obvious one to avoid.

@ retrophoebia: Before anyone gets sent to Ranger School, there is a pre-selection process everyone goes thru. If then can't meet these standards, they don't get sent. When I was in the 82nd ABN DIV(2008-2012), we had a pre-Ranger School that had its own selection process. So, you had to pass pre-selection to go to the unit's version of Ranger School before they are sent to Ranger School. Being sent to Ranger School and then failing reflects badly on not only the individual but also the unit. That's why we had pre-selection. However, meeting the pre-selection standards does not mean they will pass the school. So, 1000 women will not take up any slots just so 3 or 4 will pass Ranger School. They will be weeded out ahead of time. Even then, chances are they will never make the Ranger Battalions as they have even higher standards.

Ranger School is a leadership course for improving you basic patrolling skill set and you earn a Ranger Tab. It won't help you much outside of combat arms.

Ranger Bat, is part of SOCOM. Wouldn't say that RASP is easier or tougher then Ranger School but RASP is the easiest 8 weeks of your days in the Ranger Bat. The op tempo goes up from there. Generally we were deployed more then the tier 2 guys as we had our mission set, supported tier 1 and tier 2 90's.

And of course we are not a soft skill set unit. SF? Sure they do all kinds of stuff. Tier one and the Rangers not so much. As in none at all during my time. Missions change and I cannot speak to any recent developments

Also it is my understanding these gals did not fail out of Ranger School, nor did they fail out of Pre Ranger. They failed to complete the pre-pre Ranger training program. So yea a couple steps away from the actual school and tab.

In the early 90s, we had RIP (Ranger Indoctrination Program). It followed jump school for all IET enlistees.

It was a two week screening process for guys interested in volunteering for the Rangers. At the end, the only guys I saw get the slot were the ones without PCS orders at the end of MOS school. We were told the guys who went to the Regiment without the tab got a steady dose of additional PT/training to get them ready and motivate them to get the tab.

More like spend the war on their backs - either in our area or the enemy's. Especially the enemy's - after all, they can make the enemy less wild by draining the testosterone, engaging in their famous diplomatic abilities, and defusing situations, presenting other viewpoints, showing how grrrrllllllllll power is better than having small dicks, etc., etc.

"Ranger School also showed women were innovative problem-solvers who offered fresh approaches in the field."

Let me translate that from Fuckwit Officer-Speak down to civilian for you: "We do not have a single metric on which we could say they were competent, but the professional politician asskissers above me have ordered me to make this sound as upbeat as possible"

RIP was replaced by RASP due to the operational tempo during the GWOT. Didn't have time for the old method of your platoon hyper focusing on newbies so the basic skill set was rolled up into one. Course standardization was a benefit as well. I think RASP is an improvement though I appreciated the pressure cooker of having everyone in the platoon up our asses until we fixed our shit.

PT was three times a day for everyone, newbie or vet, officer or enlisted, tab and scroll or just scroll. Any man not on the extended scale for their PT scores was weak.sauce. It was difcult to get the time off to earn your tab as it screwed with the available man power for deployments. At that level, there is no peace time. X number of days down range, X number of days state side for recovery, training and what not. Men were sent to get their short tab if they were older veterans who needed the extra push for DA selected promotions/ schools etc or younger like myself who were promoted early and needed the extra training before taking over a fire team. Sort of a badge of shame in some folks eyes. In Ranger school, most of us Bat Boys only struggled with planning fire support section of the op order and planing routes to ensure the maximum amount of fire support during movements. Everything else was lower enlisted every day kind of thing for us.